The Political Economy of Networked Intimacy
This chapter analyses Web 2.0 technologies and their pervasive imperative of sharing under the culture of participation. It explores the political economy of social media platforms in relation to intimacy, insofar as they facilitate the creation and development of close relationships but, at the same time, profit from these intimate relationships through data mining or charging a fee to access the service or to use premium services. In order to stress the connections between the political economy of social media companies and the intimacy practices they facilitate, this chapter examines the business models of Badoo, CouchSurfing, and Facebook, including participants’ perceptions on the ways these companies monetize their traffic and the market intervention in the creation of new relationships.
KeywordsIntimacy Platforms Political economy Sharing Social media
- Anderson, C. (2006, November 26). In praise of radical transparency. The long tail. http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2006/11/in_praise_of_ra.html. Date Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
- Andrejevic, M. (2010). Social network exploitation. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 82–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Barbrook, R. (1998). The hi-tech gift economy. First Monday, 3(12), http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/631/552. Date Accessed 10 Oct 2013.
- Basset, C. (2013). Silence, Delirium, Lies? In G. Lovink & M. Rasch (Eds.), Unlike us reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 146–158). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connection in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Bialski, P. (2007). Intimate tourism: Friendships in a state of mobility—The case of the online hospitality network. M.A. thesis, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
- boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Cocks, H. G. (2015). The pre-history of print and online dating, c. 1690–1990. In I. A. Degim, J. Johnson, & T. Fu (Eds.), Online courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders (pp. 17–28). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Steinfield, C., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2011). Negotiation privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment. In S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy online: Perspective on privacy and self-disclosure on the social web (pp. 19–32). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Enguix, B., & Ardèvol, E. (2011). Enacting bodies: Online dating and new media practices. In K. Ross (Ed.), The handbook of gender, sex and media (pp. 502–515). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Feldman, Z. (2012). Beyond freedom and oppression: Social media, refusal and the politics of participation. In: IR 13.0 Conference of the AoIR, 18/21 October 2012, Salford. http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/viewFile/6/pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2015.
- Gallagher, B. (2012). CouchSurfing rises $15 million series B from general catalyst partners, Menlo ventures, others. TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/22/couchsurfing-raises-15-million-series-b-from-general-catalyst-partners-others/. Date Accessed 19 Feb 2015.
- Gehl, R. W. (2013). “Why I left Facebook”: Stubbornly refusing to not exist even after opting out of Mark Zuckerberg’s social graph. In G. Lovink & M. Rasch (Eds.), Unlike us reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 220–238). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Gehl, R. W. (2014). Reverse engineering social media: Software, culture, and political economy in new media capitalism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Hearn, A. (2010). Structuring feeling: Web 2.0, online ranking and rating, and the digital “reputation” economy. Ephemera, 10(3/4), 421–438.Google Scholar
- Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Hinton, S., & Hjorth, L. (2013). Understanding social media. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, J. (2013). Rhetorics of sharing: Data, imagination, and desire. In G. Lovink & M. Rasch (Eds.), Unlike us reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 127–136). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Kücklich, J. (2005). Precarious playbour: Modders and the digital games industry. Fibreculture, 5. http://five.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-025-precarious-playbour-modders-and-the-digital-games-industry/. Date Accessed 10 Oct 2013.
- Lardellier, P. (2015). Liberalism conquering love: Reports and reflections on mass romantic and sexual consumption in the Internet age. In I. A. Degim, J. Johnson, & T. Fu (Eds.), Online courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders (pp. 96–105). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Lévy, P. (2001). Cyberculture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Lindsay, M. (2015). Performative acts of gender in online dating: An auto-ethnography comparing sites. In I. A. Degim, J. Johnson, & T. Fu (Eds.), Online courtship: Interpersonal interactions across borders (pp. 242–261). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Marwick, A. E. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Miller, D. (2011). Tales from Facebook. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly Media, Inc. 30 September. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a//web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html, Date Accessed 13 July 2014.
- Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Putman, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and Schister Ltd.Google Scholar
- Senft, T. M. (2012). Microcelebrity and the branded self. In J. Burgess & A. Bruns (Eds.), Blackwell companion to new media dynamics (pp. 346–654). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Shepherd, T. (2014). Gendering the commodity audience in social media. In L. Steiner, L. McLaughlin, & C. Carte (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media and gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Verdú, V. (2005). Yo y tú, objetos de lujo: El personismo: la primera revolución cultural del siglo XXI. Barcelona: Random House Mandadori.Google Scholar
- Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2011). The ties that bond: Re-examining the relationship between Facebook use and bonding social capital. In System sciences (HICSS), 4/7 January, Kauai, HI (pp. 1–10). Kauai: IEEE.Google Scholar
- Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K. N., & Díaz de Isla Gómez, I. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x/full. Date Accessed 5 June 2012.
- Yoder, S. (2014). How online dating became a $2 billion industry. Fiscal Times. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/14/Valentines-Day-2014-How-Online-Dating-Became-2-Billion-Industry. Date Accessed 5 December 2015.